ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 337 



believe that a sWp has infringed the Treaty, the cruisers of the con- 

 tracting- Parties may require production from the master of " jiieces 

 officielles" proving its nationality (Art. 10). 



Now I have the Treaty before me. The Powers who are parties to it 

 are. — The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; 

 the Emperor of Germany; the King of Prussia; the President of the 

 Argentine Confederation; the Emperor of Austria; the King of Bohe- 

 mia; the King of the Belgians; the Emperor of Brazil; the President 

 of the Eepublic of Costa Bica; the King of Denmark; the President 

 of the Dominican Eepublic; the King of Spain; the President of the 

 United States of America; the President of the States of Columbia; 

 the President of the French Eepublic; the President of the Eepublic 

 of Guatemala; the King of the Hellenes; the King of Italy; the King 

 of the Ottomans; the King of the Netherlands; The Grand-Duke of 

 Luxembourg; the Shah of Persia; the King of Portugal; the King of 

 Eoumania; the Emperor of all the Eussias; the President of the Eepub- 

 lic of Salvador; the King of Servia; the King of Sweden and Norway; 

 the President of the Oriental Eepublic of Uruguay. I cannot suggest 

 any great Power that is not a party to this Convention, and therefore 

 the case which my friend here suggests as a difficulty is a case which 

 these Powers have recognized as one which might not be i)erhaps ade- 

 quately or properly dealt with under existing international law, and 

 therefore they have made it a matter of express compact for the bene- 

 fit of all the Nations. 



Now the next case on page 176, to which my friend refers, is one 

 highly creditable to my friend's ingenuity, but does it help the Tribunal? 



My friend says: 



If a light-house were erected by a nation in waters outside of the three-mile line, 

 for the benefit of its own commerce and that of the world, 



that is the first "if" 



1124 if some pursuit for gain on the adjacent high sea should be discovered which 

 would obscure the light or endtmger the light-house or the lives of its inmates, 

 would that Government be defenseless? 



Well, it is a very difficult case to realize what is really meant by that. 

 For instance, I cannot quite realize how a pursuit of fishijig on the 

 high seas could, except by some stretch of imagination of which I am 

 not capable, require the obscurity of the light of a lighthouse, or 

 endanger the light-house or the lives of its inmates; but I wish to 

 point out that I think my friend has, for the moment forgotten, that if 

 a light house is built ui)on a rock or uj)on piles driven into the bed of 

 the sea, it becomes, as fiir as that lighthouse is concerned, part of the 

 territory of the nation which has erected it, and, as part of the territory 

 of the nation which has erected it, it has, incident to it, all the rights 

 that belong to the protection of territory — no more and no less. 



Mr. Phelps. — If it should be five miles out? 



Sir Charles Eussell, — Certainly, undoubtedly. The most impor- 

 tant light-houses in the world are outside the 3 mile limit. 



Lord Hannen. — The great Eddystone Light-house, 14 miles off the 

 land, is built on the bed of a rock. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — That point has never been doubted; and 

 if it were there is ample authority to support it. The right to acquire 

 by the construction of a light-house on a rock in mid-ocean a territorial 

 right in respect of the space so occupied is undoubted; and therefore I 

 answer my friend's case by saying that ordinary territorial law would 

 apply to it — there is no reason why any different territorial law should 

 apply. 



B S, PT xin 22 



